said, and with truth, that the whole of the ceremonial law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ in his own person; but this does not account for the abolition of it afterwards; otherwise we must suppose the moral law, which he fulfilled likewise, to be abolished also; and this has never been asserted by any but the wildest Antinomian perverters of Divine Truth."*

Did Mr. Noble permit of the signification commonly attached to the word "fulfil" in reference to the ceremonial law, but which it is evident he does not, nor do they who hold with him, then the contradiction herein stated would not obtain. Applied to the ceremonial law, which was abolished, the word "fulfil" must be allowed to mean,-to be brought to an end, by the things fore-shadowed therein being virtually accomplished: not that the shadow itself was in truth and of a verity "filled full" with the Divine, as the moral law was afterwards, otherwise we must suppose the moral law, which he fulfilled likewise, to be abolished also.

We shall commence our answer to this question,-" Did our Saviour fulfil the ceremonial law in like manner as He did the moral?" by stating it in the proposition form :—

1st. The moral law speaks from within, and was made perfect in Christ, even to the lowest principles of His sinless Humanity.

2nd. The ceremonial law speaks from without, and was not, and could not, in the very nature of things, be perfected in Christ in like manner. †

In the one case the law, which is the moral, was fulfilled even to its outermost, and thereby was established for ever: in the other, the law, which is the ceremonial, was emptied of its life, which it held only by correspondence, and was thereby made null and void, or abrogated for ever. Thus the moral law, in itself divine, was perfected in Christ, whilst the ceremonial law, in itself dead, was of necessity abolished.

The truth of these propositions will, we trust, be made evident in the sequel.

We hold, then, that it is not true that our Saviour fulfilled the ceremonial law, in like manner, and in the same sense in which He fulfilled the moral law, even to its literal observance; for that would

*The italics are ours.

The ceremonial law also speaks from within, by virtue of its spiritual sense, as well as the moral law; and this latter law also speaks from without as well as from within. Thus the Ten Commandments are the moral law, which may be observed either from without only, or at the same time, from within also. Hence a man may abstain from murder and adultery in the outward act, but if not from within at the same time, be is still a murderer and an adulterer.---ED.

have been to have served, in obedience, that which was only permissive, and which was providentially commanded or allowed in order to keep the carnal-minded, stiff-necked, and rebellious Jews from falling into a lower, more idolatrous, and sinful state than they otherwise would have done.

In as far as, and in the sense in whch, the ceremonial law can be said to have been fulfilled in Christ, it remains with us to this day,—and, in the very nature of things, will ever so remain; for where Christ has been in Spirit, there He ever is, and must ever henceforth be.

Inasmuch then as the ceremonial law, strictly so called, has been abolished in outward or literal observance, we have every reason, we conceive, to conclude, a priori, that it was not literally observed by our Saviour, and this we shall find to be Scripturally true. To say that it was first fulfilled, and then abolished, is to mistake, in our opinion, the only true meaning of Scripture; for the term fulfil signifies, in Biblical language, to fill full; now what Christ, as our Saviour, has filled full, must remain so to eternity. This He did with the moral law in every, even the least, particular, and this law was thereby established for ever. Had He done the same by the ceremonial law, it too would thereby have been lastingly established, not abrogated. In this respect, then, we conceive Mr. Noble to be in error when he says that " our Saviour, it is true, fulfilled the ceremonial law as well as the moral," but that "the former is now abolished, whilst the latter remains;" and we hold him to be in truth, in the admission, that the fulfilment of the ceremonial law does not account for its abolition afterwards, whilst the fulfilment of the moral law sufficiently testifies to its more

* We are sorry that we have cause thus to state the matter, but the manner has been forced upon us; for if it be maintained, as Mr. Noble, in the extract above given, clearly does, that the ceremonial law was fulfilled in like manner as the moral law, it must from the very necessity of the case have been literally and strictly observed, for thus it could only have been perfectly fulfilled. Whereas our opinion is, that they were each fulfilled (if the same word "fulfil" be used in respect of both laws) in a different manner :-the ceremonial law was fulfilled to its abolition, by the eduction or withdrawal from it of those principles which the Jews, in their ignorance, believed it to contain in fact, or in cause, the truth being, that it held them only in effect, and this by mere and outward correspondence; whilst the moral law, on the other hand, was fulfilled to its more perfect establishment, by the induction or the indrawal of the Divine, the law in its letter being made, in Christ, the continent thereof. The one, the ceremonial law, spoke to us in principle, by correspondence merely; the other, the moral law, spoke to us then-still does, and ever will continue to do-morally in the letter, but spiritually and divinely in its interior and innermost.

We here use it in the sense in which Mr. Noble does.

perfect establishment. The ceremonial law, in its literal observance, was made binding upon the external-minded Jews, in adaptation to, and in compassion of, their state. It was a beneficent permission, although an apparent command, to enable them to hold communion with their God, by the merest outward correspondence, they being no longer in condition to retain it otherwise. The Jews, in this state, were below the mark, if I might so term it, of the lowest natural condition of life, wherein true worship could either be given or offered up by them,— below that plane, in fact, whereon saving principles can alone rest, and whence they could, by possibility only, be made attainable. This being the case, they could only hold communion with God out of themselves. Inward communion they knew not of; hence the sacrifices of bulls and goats were considered by them, as in themselves saving, needful, and efficacious; but which, we are expressly told, were worthless before God, and unacceptable to Him. These outward sacrifices our Saviour did not perform, nor could fulfil, being as they were destitute of all efficacy, displeasing to God, dead in themselves, and only shadowing forth the living by correspondence. To the point where the Jews were capable of being saved, if we might so express it, by the inward enfixment or implantation, or rather, to speak more correctly, reception of living principles, our Saviour followed them, and fulfilled the law that had thus been given them; beyond this He could not have gone without partaking of a fallen nature, on being convinced of sin. For it was through their sinfulness the ceremonial law was enjoined, and it could only be through needlessness, in a Being without sin, that it could be fulfilled. To say that our Saviour performed needless sacrifices, is to detract from His great name, and to make Hìm other than God. The sacrifice He underwent, was the sacrifice of the Infirm Humanity He assumed, and which He offered up acceptably, and without sin, to the Divinity within. Having done this, there was no necessity-nay, in fact, it would have been sinful to have gone out of Himself for the purpose of offering up other useless and unacceptable sacrifices:-" In the blood of bulls and goats God delighteth not; neither seeketh He these at your hands." The same God that declared this in the Old Testament, and affirmed that it was only through the hardness of their hearts that such requirements were made, was indwelling in Christ whilst on earth, and to Him the sacrifice of the Humanity, which He derived from the mother, was offered, completed, and fulfilled. Divinity He brought down, or implanted into the very lowest principles of sinless Humanity. To say that He brought Divinity down still lower, or fulfilled ceremonies that were, in mercy, commanded to be kept by the

Jews, by reason of their sinfulness, is, virtually, to draw Divinity out of Himself, and to place it in the animals sacrificed. Such an idea as this is as unscriptural as it is erroneous.

66

The principles represented by the outward offerings, Christ fulfilled and magnified in Himself, thereby making them honourable. Out of Himself there could be no fulfilment. The law which He fulfilled is "holy, just, and good," and against this law Paul speaketh not. The law which He did not fulfil, nor in the very nature of things, according to the conception, could have fulfilled, was abolished, and from this law, Paul saith, we are freed." But it is said, the ceremonial law is part of the Word, and Christ, it must be acknowledged, came as the Word. In the purpose of this statement a virtual denial is involved of the ceremonial law being abolished at all. To this a counter-statement might legitimately, and in all fairness, be raised, and that is, it might be said, "The ceremonial law is abolished, and Christ, as the Word, came not to abolish, but to establish; therefore, and the inference is a just one, the ceremonial law cannot have been part of the Word as given us by God." Nor was it so given to naturally well-disposed and believing men. We are expressly and repeatedly told, that it was by reason of the hardness of their hearts" that thus it was commanded them. To sacrifice out of oneself was then, is now, and ever will be, a sign of the hardness of our hearts, or the sinfulness of our nature: and to say that thus Christ sacrificed, is to convince Him of sin. Thus far, then, we may rightly conclude, we think, that where the ceremonial law begins, which Christ by His coming abolished, there uselessness of action or sinfulness obtains; and that by how much it was observed beyond this point, had it been possible with God, by so much would the sinlessness of that Humanity have been destroyed, sinfulness being established in its stead. To the extent of its observance, too, after the time when our Saviour was no longer subject to His parents, would the ceremonial law have been for ever made good. Being abolished, it was not fulfilled; not being fulfilled, it could not have been observed.

Again, it is said, that the ceremonial law was abolished by reason of its fulfilment; whilst the moral law, by the same means, was more perfectly established, which is, in fact, to say, in comparison of result, a positive contradiction. In the epistle to the Hebrews, we are led to have some conception as to the means by which the ceremonial law was abolished, wherein St. Paul declareth, in quotation from the Old Testament" Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offering, and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said He, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh

away the first that He may establish the second." In the keeping of the law here spoken of, there can have been no life, for it is plainly affirmed, that God "had no pleasure" in the performance of its requirements, but only in the doing of His will; whilst in the keeping of the law which remains, viz., the moral law, we have our Saviour's assurance there is life, for when speaking of the commandments, and in answer to a question put to Him, He saith, "Keep these, and thou shalt live." Can it then be said that Christ, as our Saviour, and in obedience to the will of God, submitted himself to that which was sinful, or at all events, to that in which God could take no delight? God forbid. "He taketh away the first, to establish the second,"-not by submitting Himself to its observance, nor acting in obedience to its dictates, but by casting out that, in the Humanity assumed, which was disposed to bow the knee to its requirements, and bringing down that which was lawful, just, and good in its place. In like manner as He freed us from this law, He delivered us from the works of the devil and as Satan found no place in Him, but was cast behind Him, so the ceremonial law, which was given in consequence of the sinfulness of our fallen nature, met with no observance by Him, but was at once and for ever abolished. Hence as sin was overcome in Him by the sacrifice of Himself, so the ceremonial law, which foreshadowed the need of such sacrifice, and that by reason of our exceeding sinfulness, was abolished, as soon as the needed sacrifice for that purpose was completed. And as in the one case it would be blasphemous to suppose that sin found either part or favour in God our Saviour, or that it was in anywise necessary that He should first enter into sin previous to His expulsion of it from and out of the Humanity assumed,—so in the other, it would be equally irreverent to declare, that in order to abolish what was far from God's will, and anything but pleasing in His sight, it was first needful for Him to act in observance of it, and in obedience to its strict requirements for its proper fulfilment. Sin was overcome by being cast out, not entered into the ceremonial law, strictly so called, was abolished by reason of the impossibility of its fulfilment, as God could not act contrary to His own divine will, nor have permitted the Humanity He assumed to do that which was displeasing in His sight.

In conclusion, then, we trust it will not be considered that our judg ment is without proof, when we declare it as our opinion that the ceremonial law, as the ceremonial law, was never fulfilled; and that the only and proper answer to be given to the question which heads this article, must be in the negative. GEO. WILKIN.